On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 09:02:51AM +0100, Paul Barker wrote:
> On 01/06/2024 11:13, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 04:03:39PM +0100, Paul Barker wrote:
...
> >> @@ -298,13 +269,14 @@ static void ravb_ring_free(struct net_device *ndev, int q)
> >> priv->tx_ring[q] = NULL;
> >> }
> >>
> >> - /* Free RX skb ringbuffer */
> >> - if (priv->rx_skb[q]) {
> >> - for (i = 0; i < priv->num_rx_ring[q]; i++)
> >> - dev_kfree_skb(priv->rx_skb[q][i]);
> >> + /* Free RX buffers */
> >> + for (i = 0; i < priv->num_rx_ring[q]; i++) {
> >> + if (priv->rx_buffers[q][i].page)
> >> + page_pool_put_page(priv->rx_pool[q], priv->rx_buffers[q][i].page, 0, true);
> >
> > nit: Networking still prefers code to be 80 columns wide or less.
> > It looks like that can be trivially achieved here.
> >
> > Flagged by checkpatch.pl --max-line-length=80
>
> Sergey has asked me to wrap to 100 cols [1]. I can only find a reference
> to 80 in the docs though [2], so I guess you may be right.
>
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/611a49b8-ecdb-6b91-9d3e-262bf3851f5b@xxxxxx/
> [2]: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html
Hi Paul,
If Sergey prefers 100 then I won't argue :)
FWIIW, think what has happened here relates to the Kernel, at some point,
going from 80 to 100 columns as the preferred maximum width, while Networking
stuck with 80.
...
